Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Gary View Post
    Sorry, I don't follow your logic. Thousands of people each year, all over the world, are struck by lightning, sometimes in the oddest of circumstances. At one time theists blamed such events on the wrath of a god, we now know, thanks to Ben Franklin, that lightning is a natural phenomenon. No one today believes that lightning is a supernatural act...thanks to science.
    Your capacity to exercise basic logic = zero.
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gary View Post
      Do you believe that a woman can be impregnated without human sperm? Do you believe that a woman can be impregnated by an invisible ghost? If yes, do you have any research to support this claim?


      You seem unaware of this thing that was developed called "artificial semen".

      http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...ial-sperm-eggs

      Also, you seem to have a strawman in your midst. I don't believe that God is "an invisible ghost", rather I believe he is a being who created the universe. Also since I proved that artificial semen can be created and that a woman does not need to have sex to get pregnant then I see no real reason why a being who created the universe cannot create artificial sperm.
      “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
        You are correct, although I can assign probabilities to things like virgin births and reanimations of dead bodies. Both of these alleged events are extremely, extremely, extremely rare or non-existent. I cannot prove they are non-existent, but since they are so improbable, I can choose to not pay any more attention to such claims than I would claims of visitations to earth by green, antennaed Martians.
        I think you missed my point from earlier on. Those things are not impossible. We just don't know how to achieve them yet. A being more advanced than us with more knowledge on how the universe works because he created it can achieve those things.
        “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
          Sorry. I'm still missing your point.
          Never mind. It would just be argument by outrage if you made a big deal about it. Anyway, you can't convince us that your worldview is true, and we can't convince you that our worldview is true. Of course, we believe the stakes are eternal and your stakes are merely temporal.
          If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post


            You seem unaware of this thing that was developed called "artificial semen".

            http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...ial-sperm-eggs

            Also, you seem to have a strawman in your midst. I don't believe that God is "an invisible ghost", rather I believe he is a being who created the universe. Also since I proved that artificial semen can be created and that a woman does not need to have sex to get pregnant then I see no real reason why a being who created the universe cannot create artificial sperm.
            When your artificial sperm produces a live, fully developed baby, get back to me.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
              When your artificial sperm produces a live, fully developed baby, get back to me.


              Oh but Gary, I thought it was impossible.
              “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
                I think you missed my point from earlier on. Those things are not impossible. We just don't know how to achieve them yet. A being more advanced than us with more knowledge on how the universe works because he created it can achieve those things.
                I agree. ANYTHING is possible. But I'm not talking about what is possible, I am talking about what is probable, and virgin births and the reanimation of dead bodies are no more probable than the existence of unicorns and leprechauns. That is why there is no need for people to worry about some form of eternal punishment for not believing any supernatural claim, including your claim of a resurrected man/god who will inflict some type of eternal punishment upon you for not worshipping him as your lord and slave master.

                If Christians would give up their belief in punishment for thought crimes against your invisible deity, we skeptics wouldn't waste our time criticizing you.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                  I agree. ANYTHING is possible. But I'm not talking about what is possible, I am talking about what is probable, and virgin births and the reanimation of dead bodies are no more probable than the existence of unicorns and leprechauns. That is why there is no need for people to worry about some form of eternal punishment for not believing any supernatural claim, including your claim of a resurrected man/god who will inflict some type of eternal punishment upon you for not worshipping him as your lord and slave master.

                  If Christians would give up their belief in punishment for thought crimes against your invisible deity, we skeptics wouldn't waste our time criticizing you.
                  What is probable determines on WHO IS TRYING to achieve that goal. If aliens existed with a greater technology and knowledge than us then obviously they would be able to do things that we can't do. If God does indeed exist then obviously he can do things that we can't do, like create a universe for starters. if you don't understand such a concept then perhaps it is you that has the problem.
                  “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
                    What is probable determines on WHO IS TRYING to achieve that goal. If aliens existed with a greater technology and knowledge than us then obviously they would be able to do things that we can't do. If God does indeed exist then obviously he can do things that we can't do, like create a universe for starters. if you don't understand such a concept then perhaps it is you that has the problem.
                    It is quite possible that a god created the universe. I do not deny that. But which god? I honor whoever or whatever it is that created the universe, but I'm not going to pray to any man-made god unless there is very good evidence that he/she/it is the Creator. The Jewish and Christian evidence that Yahweh is the Creator is pathetically poor, in my opinion.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post


                      Oh but Gary, I thought it was impossible.
                      Just because someone calls a substance "artificial sperm" means nothing unless they can cause a pregnancy. Once mankind can produce pregnancies without (male) human sperm, I will gladly acknowledge that artificial sperm can create a pregnancy. However, I will still deny that invisible ghost gods can impregnate human virgins with invisible ghost-god sperm, real or artificial.

                      So you still need to prove that a "holy" ghost exists and that this ghost can produce sperm that causes conception in virgin human females.

                      Comment


                      • QUOTE=Apologiaphoenix;241378]You know Christians were the ones who destroyed slavery in the Roman Empire. Right?[/QUOTE]

                        No. The Enlightenment destroyed slavery...enlightenment from religious superstitions and dogma.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                          Yep. So we Christians must read everything Gary wants us to.

                          Gary will not read anything that challenges his worldview.

                          What a pathetic coward.
                          Just an example of intellectual honesty:

                          I'm hoping to have a career in Christian Origins/Second Temple Judaism, which naturally includes the NT and the early Church. Some of you know the literature very well in that field, better than I do in some cases.

                          I'm very centrist, which can mean a variety of things to a lot of people. I read the Jesus Seminar work. I think it's totally wrong, but I read it. Crossan is an eminent scholar, even though I think he's dead wrong on the Cross Gospel, the Resurrection, and the Gospel of Thomas. I've read Bart Ehrman's scholarly work (I won't touch his popular work with a 10 foot pole), and some of it is very good. His translation of the Apocryphal Gospels is more or less the standard. I've read Maurice Casey's work, which is overly dependent on claims of Aramaic. His book about mythicism is a necessary response, though it has its own flaws.

                          I've looked at some of Craig Evans', Craig Keener's, and Darrell Bock's work. Bock is, in my opinion, overly wedded to inerrancy. People will dispute this, but Luke is wrong about the Census of Quirinius. It doesn't make any sense to me. Mark doesn't know geography, which is to be expected. If John Mark actually wrote it (which I think is very likely), then it makes sense he is unfamiliar with his own country! People in antiquity largely did not know the world outside of their area. The infancy narratives are of questionable accuracy (see especially Raymond Brown's The Birth of the Messiah).

                          I may not agree with all of the above work, but by considering other viewpoints, you may discover you are in error or there's another way to examine an issue.

                          Also, the "Enlightenment" is poorly named. It did not eliminate slavery; some of the most well-known proponents believed in the inherent inferiority of non-whites.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                            Just an example of intellectual honesty:

                            I'm hoping to have a career in Christian Origins/Second Temple Judaism, which naturally includes the NT and the early Church. Some of you know the literature very well in that field, better than I do in some cases.

                            I'm very centrist, which can mean a variety of things to a lot of people. I read the Jesus Seminar work. I think it's totally wrong, but I read it. Crossan is an eminent scholar, even though I think he's dead wrong on the Cross Gospel, the Resurrection, and the Gospel of Thomas. I've read Bart Ehrman's scholarly work (I won't touch his popular work with a 10 foot pole), and some of it is very good. His translation of the Apocryphal Gospels is more or less the standard. I've read Maurice Casey's work, which is overly dependent on claims of Aramaic. His book about mythicism is a necessary response, though it has its own flaws.

                            I've looked at some of Craig Evans', Craig Keener's, and Darrell Bock's work. Bock is, in my opinion, overly wedded to inerrancy. People will dispute this, but Luke is wrong about the Census of Quirinius. It doesn't make any sense to me. Mark doesn't know geography, which is to be expected. If John Mark actually wrote it (which I think is very likely), then it makes sense he is unfamiliar with his own country! People in antiquity largely did not know the world outside of their area. The infancy narratives are of questionable accuracy (see especially Raymond Brown's The Birth of the Messiah).

                            I may not agree with all of the above work, but by considering other viewpoints, you may discover you are in error or there's another way to examine an issue.

                            Also, the "Enlightenment" is poorly named. It did not eliminate slavery; some of the most well-known proponents believed in the inherent inferiority of non-whites.
                            Stein:

                            If I disagreed with or was confused by a certain position held by the overwhelming majority of NT scholars, I would agree that I should read the works of scholars on these topics to better understand the issues. My point is that I do NOT disagree with the overwhelming majority of scholars on ANY subject.

                            1. I do not doubt the existence of Jesus. I believe there is very good evidence that he existed.

                            So there is no need for me to read scholarly books on this subject unless I am unsure of my position or I intend to debate a mythicist.

                            2. I do not doubt that very early on, the earliest Christians believed in bodily resurrection.

                            Therefore there is no need for me to read additional scholarly works on this subject.

                            3. I do not doubt the sincerity of the earliest Christian belief in a bodily resurrection. I do not think that they were lying.

                            4. I do not doubt the existence of Paul of Tarsus, nor the authenticity of at least seven of his epistles.

                            5. I do doubt the existence of an empty tomb, but this is not a position held by the overwhelming majority (>90%) of NT scholars. If Gary Habermas' numbers are correct, and I would bet that they probably are, only 70% of NT scholars believe in the historicity of the empty tomb. That means that a sizable minority of NT scholars do NOT believe in the historicity of the empty tomb. My position may be in the minority, but you can't say that my position is ludicrous or on the fringe of scholarship.

                            6. I do not dismiss miracles as impossible, I simply treat them as improbable. Therefore I am open-minded to the existence of miracles, but I demand very strong evidence to convince me that the odd event in question was truly an act of an invisible divine Being and not a very odd, very rare, natural event. I believe that this is the same attitude that most Christians on TW have regarding all other supernatural claims such as Martians, unicorns, fairies, etc., so why is it "biased" for me to use this criteria for YOUR supernatural claims?

                            I have read NT Wright's 800+ page book on the Resurrection, so it isn't as if I haven't read any scholarly works. In addition, I have read articles by Peter Kreeft, Gary Habermas, and other Christian scholars. So to say that I refuse to read opposing viewpoints is false.

                            My questions for you, then, are:

                            1. How many Christian scholars must I read before YOU consider me sufficiently informed as to your position?
                            2. If I have read NT Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God, is there some topic that other Christian scholars cover related to the Resurrection claim in their books that Wright failed to cover in his massive work?
                            3. If I agree with all the positions of the majority of NT scholars, with the exception of the empty tomb, what possible other information do you think might change my mind regarding the historicity of a first century reanimation?

                            Stein: If you have a source that states that the overwhelming majority of NT scholars state that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is as unquestioned an historical fact as any other event in ancient history; a fact that should be included in every public university world history text book; then THAT would cause me to seriously question my position on the historicity of this alleged event, but I will bet the pink slip to my car that not even a majority of NT scholars would be willing to go out on that limb.
                            Last edited by Gary; 09-08-2015, 04:28 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                              Just because someone calls a substance "artificial sperm" means nothing unless they can cause a pregnancy. Once mankind can produce pregnancies without (male) human sperm, I will gladly acknowledge that artificial sperm can create a pregnancy.
                              are you always this dull or is it just something you work on for us? lol....we already can produce pregnancies without sperm through cloning. Nothing forbids us from growing babies in uteru that way. nothing impossible about it just not expedient because the natural way works rather effectively


                              However, I will still deny that invisible ghost gods can impregnate human virgins with invisible ghost-god sperm, real or artificial.
                              Good because despite your illiteracy there is nothing about sperm in the gospels

                              Comment


                              • Wright gets things wrong, believe it or not. There was a journal article some years ago about how he conflated Jewish and Greek beliefs about the afterlife and how some Jewish beliefs aren't that different from Greek beliefs. There are a few other issues with how he reaches his conclusion, which are beyond the scope of this discussion. Also, I don't have the book with me.

                                If you accept what 90% of NT scholars accept, you accept the burial by Joseph of Arimathea. With the exception of Crossan and Ehrman, almost everyone accepts it, even Ludemann and Casey, and that's saying something! Before Carrier went nuts, even he accepted the burial. Don't give me that tripe about "miracles are unlikely." You repeatedly defended a question-begging argument that said miracle claims are unjustified. You've refused to read Keener, choosing instead to "refute" him with silly blog articles.

                                You'd have to stop being a fundy atheist. Your biggest argument seems to be "there are inconsistencies, so it can't be true." Plus a ton of garbage about immorality/evil/etc., which have no ontological foundation on your worldview.Also, there's really no such thing as a historical fact in that strict positivistic sense. History often involves reasoning based on limited information. It's not an "unquestioned fact" that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. It's an unquestioned fact that his disciples had appearances after his death, and it's far more likely than not the tomb was empty.

                                To answer your questions specifically:

                                1. There's a huge difference between reading and understanding. I can read a book on astrophysics. I don't understand it. You don't understand anything outside of a strictly literal reading, which is pathetic and sad. You should read exegetical commentaries on all four Gospels, as well as 1 Corinthians. Ideally, you should learn to read the Greek as well. You'd be far better informed after that.

                                2. Wright has some issues, which several scholars have pointed out.

                                3. Your comment about reanimation misses the point, as usual. The gospels are very clear the Resurrection is not a "reanimation," in terms of someone dead being returned to mortal life. The Resurrection is Jesus being put into what Wright calls "life after life after death," with a "transphysical" body that can do things normal bodies can't (i.e. appear spontaneously, walk through doors, etc.). If you're going to talk about reanimation, you're loudly proclaiming how clueless you are.
                                Last edited by psstein; 09-08-2015, 04:37 PM.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X